Democrats for True Family Values

We hear incessantly about "family values" from the Christofascists and their political whores in the Republican Party, but when analyzed, their so-called family values boil down to being "pro-life" and anti-abortion, anti-gay, and whining about abstinence only sex-education.  None of the policy positions, however, include supporting children once they are born or supporting real families, particularly if those families are headed by single women or women of color. They idealize the mythical nuclear family with a working father/husband and a stay at home mother, ignoring that most families need BOTH parents working to simply survive financially.  In contrast, Democrats are advancing policy proposals that help to support and maintain real families. A column in the New York Times looks at one proposal by Elizabeth Warren - who I deem un-electable (she has burned many bridges already in Virginia in her attacks on Gov. Northam) - which would help real families. Hopefully, other electable Democrats will back similar proposals to exhibit true family values.  Here are column highlights:

For millions of Americans with children, life is a constant, desperate balancing act. They must work during the day, either because they’re single parents or because decades of wage stagnation mean that both parents must take jobs to make ends meet. Yet quality child care is unavailable or unaffordable.

And the thing is, it doesn’t have to be this way. Other wealthy countries either have national child care systems or subsidize care to put it in everyone’s reach. It doesn’t even cost all that much. While other advanced countries spend, on average, about three times as much as we do helping families — so much for our vaunted “family values” — it’s still a relatively small part of their budgets. In particular, taking care of children is much cheaper than providing health care and retirement income to seniors, which even America does.

Furthermore, caring for children doesn’t just help them grow up to be productive adults. It also has immediate economic benefits, making it easier for parents to stay in the work force.

So child care really should be an important part of the progressive agenda. Hillary Clinton had a serious plan back in 2016, but the news media was too busy obsessing over emails to pay attention.

[U]nlike purist visions of replacing private health insurance with “Medicare for all,” providing child care wouldn’t require imposing big new taxes on the middle class. The sums of money involved are small enough that new taxes on great wealth and high incomes, which are desirable on other grounds, could easily raise sufficient revenue.
 Child care would be regulated to ensure that basic quality was maintained and subsidized to make it affordable. The size of the subsidy would depend on parents’ incomes: lower-income parents would get free care, higher-income parents would have to pay something, but nobody would have to pay more than 7 percent of income.

So what are the objections to this plan?  I’m hearing from a few people on the left who complain that the plan doesn’t go far enough — that it should involve free, direct public provision of child care, not subsidies to private provision. There’s certainly a case for a more expansive policy. There’s also no chance that it will happen anytime soon.  The perfect here is the enemy of the good.

Meanwhile, on the right there are the usual cries of “socialism,”  . . . .  More interestingly, I’m seeing at least some commentary on the right that doesn’t just push back against the whole idea of making it easier for mothers to work, it wants us to go back to the days when families could “live on one income.”

Realistically, of course, that’s not going to happen, and not just because 30 percent of U.S. children live in single-parent households.  And bear in mind that even as conservatives bemoan the decline of the traditional male breadwinner, they’re pushing policies like Medicaid work requirements that basically force mothers out of the home.

Right now, all of the real contenders for the Democratic nomination are solidly progressive, but so far some seem either under briefed on policy issues — there’s been far too much fumbling over Medicare for all — or too committed to sweeping, maximalist policy visions to think seriously about what they might truly be able to do if their party takes the White House and Senate next year.

Visions and values are great, but Democrats also need to be ready to hit the ground running with plans that might actually turn into legislation.

Wit two working  daughters with young children, I know first hand just how expensive decent child care is and how it can make stay home unemployed seem the better option.  Why give over the raising of your children to others if you final net pay after child care costs is negligible or non-existent.  More Democrats need to get onboard with rational and attainable plains to demonstrate true family values for working class families. 

What tax cut? GOP Worries Voters Won't Notice It

click image to enlarge

Some 60% of Americans continue to view the Trump tax law negatively, correctly believing that the big winners are the wealthy and large corporation, the latter of which have shown little inclination to increase employee wages even though sitting on record amounts of cash and strong profits.  CEO bonuses and raised shareholder dividends find a much warmer place in cold corporate hearts.  Thus, the Republican Party which has largely bet the store - and the 2018 midterms - on this largely reverse Robin Hood tax plan are now fretting that average Americans will not notice what small and meager tax cuts they will receive - cuts that will fade away over time.  Will another $60.00 per month - barely enough to cover the costs of a few pizzas and beverages for a family - really win allegiance from voters?  Many believe that it will not be enough for most to even notice. A piece in Politico looks at GOP concerns that the existing dislike of the Trump/GOP give away will go by unnoticed.  Here are article excerpts:

The average person earning between $50,000 and $75,000 will see a roughly $30 increase in their checks, assuming they're paid biweekly.

Some may not notice the increase, especially when all sorts of other things can affect people's take-home pay, from pay increases to hikes in premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance.

Democrats, meanwhile, have made Republicans' sales job harder by highlighting those who will face tax increases under the GOP plan. A string of recent polls show one-third of voters believe they will pay more under the plan, though in reality, just 5 percent are expected to see tax hikes this year. About 15 percent of taxpayers will see essentially no change in their tax bills, according to the Tax Policy Center.

“For some people, this is going to be less visible than Republicans think,” said Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow with the group. “It’s going to be really challenging to get people to notice that they got a tax cut.”

Many Republicans scoff at the idea that people may not realize their taxes have declined, saying they keep a close eye on their earnings, but it's happened before.

Former President Barack Obama had a similar tax cut in 2009 and 2010, offering up to $800 to couples that went largely unnoticed.

As with the new Republican plan, Obama's "Making Work Pay" cut was parceled out incrementally by changing how much was withheld from millions of workers' paychecks.
Many economists believed people were more likely to spend the money if it was distributed that way, rather than with a big, lump-sum payment, and the Obama administration was trying to stimulate the economy amid the Great Recession. But a 2010 New York Times/CBS poll found that fewer than 10 percent of voters had even realized their taxes had been cut.

Taxpayers should begin seeing changes in their checks as soon as next month, after the Trump administration released last week the withholding tables payroll administrators use to compute how much to take from each worker's paycheck.

The coming increases are key to Republicans’ efforts to sell their tax plan because for many people, it will be the first time the law affects them personally.

Though the centerpiece of the plan was a big cut in the corporate tax rate, it also reduced individual rates, expanded the standard deduction and doubled a popular credit for having children. But the law also scaled back a long-standing deduction for state and local taxes, pared the mortgage interest deduction and junked personal exemptions.

Those earning between $30,000 and $40,000 will see their taxes fall by $360, which, divided into 26 pay periods, equals about $14 per check. Those earning between $100,000 and $200,00 will get $2,260, or around $87 per pay period. The typical taxpayer earning between $200,000 and $500,000 will get $6,560, which translates to about $250 per check.

Those numbers are somewhat overstated because they assume people will benefit from the law's cuts in business taxes, even if that doesn't actually show up in their paychecks. Also, not all of the tax savings will be distributed this year in paychecks — some of the money won't come until people get their tax refunds next year.

They are also averages, and there will be wide variations among taxpayers, depending on individual circumstances. Some will get bigger tax cuts, and some will pay more.

Just 29 percent think they will benefit from the new law, according to a survey released Wednesday by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center. Sixty percent said they expect it to have a “mostly negative” or “not much” effect on them personally.

Meanwhile, the women's movement surges, gays are threatened with refusal of health care professionals to treat them, and non-white minorities watch as white supremacists remain the darlings of the White House and Republican Party even as evangelicals seemingly ignore, if not bless,  Der Trumpenführer adulterous affair with a porn star and hush money payments.  Let's hope Republicans are disappointed and the tax give away remains highly unpopular. 

Conservative Lies About "Caring About Children"

Click image to enlarge

As Noted in a previous post, the Christofascists and their political whores in the Republican Party always claim to be concerned about "the children."  Meanwhile, the policies they espouse are the antithesis of those one would back if one actually gave a damn about children and families.  The map above is an indictment of the conservatives who oppose paid leave and other programs that allow mothers to actually care for their children.  Andrew Sullivan notes as follows:

Lest we be too pleased with ourselves for remembering to call mom on Sunday, Ezra reminds us how tough it is for working mothers in the US, who have no guarantees of paid time off to care for an infant or a sick child:

While a handful of states, like California, offer modest paid maternal leave, there’s no federal guarantee of either paid maternal or paternal leave. We make mothers choose between spending a month with their newborn child or keeping a roof over their child’s head. That’s not how it looks in countries that value the work mothers do.

 The hypocrisy of these folks and their robber baron allies is absolutely stunning.